These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Email CommentIgnore CommenterFollow Commenter

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

In his column yesterday Mark Steyn looked back ten years to the origins of his 2006 Book America Alone.

The thesis of the book was that Europe is doomed due to collapsing fertility among the indigenes and mass Muslim immigration, so that the U.S.A. will be left standing alone at last as the sole refuge of Western Civilization.

In light of the recent Great Migrations, Mark more than ever thinks he was right.

It’s the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, Europe’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. For all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought it up. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

Mark’s yesterday column prompted me to look up my review of America Alone, which appeared on the New English Review website in November 2006.

I liked the book a lot. I’ve long been a Steyn fan.

This is a book wonderfully rich with insights, from a writer with a great many interesting things to say about the state of our world. Further, Steyn says those things superbly well, with a imaginatively rococo style that draws its metaphors and allusions from an array of sources that is very wide, and deeper (intellectually, I mean) than it looks at first glance. [Whistling Past the Graveyardby John Derbyshire, New English Review, November 2006.]

However:

It is not the case that beautiful women are wicked and plain ones virtuous. It is the case, though, however unfair it may be, that if a beautiful woman commits an error of judgment, she is much more likely to get away with it than is her ugly sister. Just so with books. A literary and stylistic gem like America Alone might be utterly wrong-headed; but one would be much more reluctant to think so than one would in the case of a dull, clumsily-written book on the same subject. Language is a charmer. If female beauty were removed from the world, in fact, language would be the charmer.

So: Is Steyn right in his analysis? Should we take up his prescriptions? Or does he leave important things unsaid, and offer strategies that have no chance of victory?

Naturally I though Mark had left important things unsaid.

Our only hope, therefore, says Steyn, is in the reform of Islam. Yet this is not ours to do. “Ultimately, only Muslims can reform Islam. All the free world can do is create conditions that increase the likelihood of Muslim reform, or at any rate do not actively impede it.” Steyn goes on to give a list of suggestions: Support women’s rights … Support economic and political liberty … Deny international legitimacy to really bad Muslim regimes … Transform the energy industry (i.e. to reduce our dependency on oil) … “Strike militarily when the opportunity presents itself.”

After the pungent brilliance of the preceding 200 pages, this all falls a bit flat. And in fact, the reader who has traversed those 200 pages has been having different thoughts from the ones Steyn tries to guide him to. For example: Is that original list of options — submit to, destroy, or reform Islam — really exhaustive? How about we just fence it off: Expel our own Muslims, forbid Muslims to enter our countries, proscribe Islam, and deal with Muslim nations commercially at arm’s length? (They have to sell their oil to someone, or else starve.) Such actions are, of course, way over the line of politically acceptable discourse today; but in five or ten years, after a couple more jihadist atrocities, they will not be.

. . . .

For all his splendid conservative credentials, Mark Steyn has tendencies towards root-causes liberalism. He takes me to task at one point:

Wearying of what he regards as the deluded idealism of the liberty-touting Bush doctrine, National Review‘s John Derbyshire began promoting the slogan “Rubble Doesn’t Cause Trouble.” Cute, and I wish him well with the T-shirt sales. But in arguing for a “realist” foreign policy of long-range bombing as necessary, he overlooks the very obvious point that rubble causes quite a lot of trouble: the rubble of Bosnia is directly responsible for radicalizing a generation of European Muslims … the rubble of Afghanistan became an international terrorist training camp … the rubble of Grozny turned Chechen nationalists into pan-Islamic jihadi …

Ah, but Mark, there is rubble, and there is rubble. Of the 13th-century Mongol horde it was said that when they had once bestowed their attentions on a city, you could afterwards ride over the place where that city had stood without your horse stumbling

. . . .

Remember those photographs of mid-1945 Berlin, fragments of broken wall sticking up out of vast drifts and dunes of pulverized masonry? Now that’s rubble.

Oh, and we won that war.

Ten years on, the truly surprising thing is how little awakening there has been. Of the Muslim immivasion, as Mark wrote yesterday: “Europe’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly.”

The delusions of multiculturalism and “diversity” have proved to have a stronger hold on the Western mind than either I or Mark expected. Look at my optimistically saying “but in five or ten years . . . .” Here we are ten years later.

ORDER IT NOW

And the immivasion itself has to some degree made honestly more difficult. There are now huge entrenched Muslim enclaves in all West European nations. Any European politician who spoke as bluntly as I did— “Expel our own Muslims, forbid Muslims to enter our countries, proscribe Islam . . .”—or even, like Mark, in somewhat gentler tones, would face major civil unrest.

It’s a parallel situation to the one Christopher Caldwell described in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

In the last ten years we have moved decisively from a Europe in which mass Muslim immigration can’t be criticized because it would be unkind to offend a weak minority, to a Europe in which it can’t be criticized because Muslim power over too many of Europe’s cities is too strong.

What about the other half of Mark’s 2006 thesis: that the U.S.A. will be left alone holding up the banner of Western Civ.?

It seems to me that the situation has deteriorated both here and in Europe; but it has deteriorated much more in Europe, especially since the events of last year.

On the other hand, we may be looking at a the-worse-the-better process. There are now organized political parties in the major European nations, with double-digit poll numbers, speaking up for the interests of the legacy populations. There is no such party in the U.S.A.

i feel we have more arrogant islamic terror in the futute. like the islamic mobs raping christian women in cologne. bacha bazi homosexual child sodomy in afghanistan . the continued genocide of papuan christians by islamist indonesia . continued apartheid in every majority islamic country . continued terrorist massacres of civilians like san bernardino and preshawar school masacre , both carried out by pakaisani islamists.

(1) I overestimated European sanity/self-preservation instinct. I thought immigration would be reduced or at least kept steady, which would have likely kept Eurabia at bay indefinitely. This was a bad call on my part, but it was not unreasonable at the time, since by 2010 both Merkel and Dave were acknowledging the failure of multiculturalisme. Then rather recently there appeared a great disturbance in the Force and things did a 180. So on this, a legitimate +1 to Steyn.

(2) Steyn is a neocon democracyfag slavered away for the overthrow of the only Muslim regimes any good at keeping radical Islam. That’s turned out well. /s -1 to Steyn.

(3) His predictions re-Russia looked uninformed even then and are hilarious today.

From a population peak in 1992 of 148 million, Russia will be down below 130 million by 2015, thereafter dropping to perhaps 50 or 60 million by the end of the century, a third of what it was at the fall of the Soviet Union. It needn’t decline at a consistent rate, of course. But I’d say it’s more likely to be even lower than 50 million than it is to be over 100 million. In fact, the worst projections show Russia falling to around 85 million by mid-century.

LOL. -1.

In short, I am still sticking with the 3/5 rating I gave this book in 2009. Probably worth reading then, don’t bother wasting your time on it now. The time of the Cuckservative is over. The Age of the Shitlord has come!

Translation We are screwed and screwed long term which is worse. We as in traditional Western civilization. Such as Richard Thompson but here our own Allison Krauss will do just fine. Our art is exquisite, why cave to Islam, we don’t need them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-nEdqWm6o

Mr Derbyshire can be anti-diversity without also caressing his murderous streak. It’s revolting and maybe an explanation for his message being ignored, though there are many more illegitimate explanations, true.

But if he goes flashing pictures of Chairman Mao, he ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow,so to speak. “Let’s lay waste to whole cities! Then they will FEAR us!!!”

Somehow he’s worked himself into embracing a world where “deserve has nothing to do with it.” And I’m sorry to be strapped in tight with so many maniacs.

Steyn is telegenic. He’s eloquent. He’s got a nice accent. But what makes him uniquely prescient or politically astute? Nothing.

Steyn is not an honest advocate for White interests or Western interests.

Steyn in fact is a pro-Zionist propagandist who gets to cover the immigration question because he’s safe.

Steyn is safe because he hates Muslims and loves Jews.

Maybe neither of these clannish, Semitic peoples are a particularly good fit for America or the West. Can we talk about it?

No.

This is because Steyn is part of the problem: he is a Fox News / Wall St. Journal neocon plant.

Steyn’s kosher mumbo-jumbo however is what gets him to the top of his class. Steyn is safe for Israel and good for the ongoing Zio-American war on the Muslim world.

Sure, Muslims refuse to ‘assimilate’ to the West. Well, that’s also true of most Jews. And Jews have been with us far longer. Muslims venerate Christ. Religious Jews, on the other hand, revile Christ.

Incredibly, the West has learned to accommodate the Jews; not the reverse. Yet this fact doesn’t seem to bother Steyn (or Derbyshire) in the slightest. They both tacitly support pan-Zionist hegemony throughout the West. And the plight of Christians under Israeli occupation never grab their attention in the least. How come?

As for hundreds of thousands of Muslims that have died as a result of preemptive Zio-American wars, well, that’s life. Get over it already. American exceptionalism.

Are Steyn and Derbyshire unaware that Jews have cleverly dragged America and Europe back into the Middle East to help the Hebrews settle their ancient disputes?

Are these two writers stupid, dishonest–or merely venal?

BTW: Steyn is part Jewish. This fact might explain his judgements and sympathies. Derbyshire on the other hand has no excuse. Then again, glaring ‘oversights’ involving Israel are pretty much a job requirement in today’s mass media. So Steyn’s orthodoxy’s may be a strategic necessity. It’s that cuckservative gene.

This may also explain why Steyn refuses to openly endorse White solidarity in the West or White nationalism in Europe or America. Hey that’s racism! Let’s just blame everything on Muslims and, while we’re at it, let’s ignore the Jewish question completely.

So Steyn is simply and absolutely anti-Muslim. At the same time, he’s reliably pro-war. Surprised?

Interestingly, all these wars just happen to target foes of Israel.

Steyn is a neocon plant with an English accent. ‘Think Yiddish. Talk British’.

For my money, Stein and his ilk should held accountable in some way for the wholesale destruction of Iraq and of Libya. After all, since when isn’t mass murder a criminal offense?

Indeed, it was ‘patriot’ Steyn and his cronies who cheered on Zio-Washington’s illegal annihilation of Iraq in 2003 and even the subsequent ‘surge’ of killing that the neocons pushed for beginning in 2006 after it became clear the the people of Iraq wanted nothing to do with America’s genocidal ‘liberation’.

But Steyn didn’t care. He didn’t care then and he doesn’t care now. Zio-Washington’s preemptive war on Iraq was never about ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ of the other myths that were cooked up to accommodate a Zionist-friendly invasion.

The lies were legion and covered with Israeli fingerprints. And Steyn was right there every step of the way. Murder these people. Rain down bombs. Ruin Iraq. Destabilize the region. ‘Creative destruction’. America will pay. Israel will benefit. Damn Muslims!

This is how chickenhawk scumbags like Steyn earn a living. I say Steyn deserves to get his ass kicked. In a perfect world, he would do some jail time.

‘Conspiracy to enable mass murder’? Sounds good to me.

So why can’t we get a real leader on immigration and nationalism?–not some crypto-Israeli.

Let’s get another thing straight: mass murder is not consistent with Christ’s teachings or the rule of law. Got that? It’s also bad PR for America. So please quit marketing Old Testament hatred and revenge, Mr. Steyn.

And when will Derbyshire and Steyn connect the dots between pro-Zionist wars of choice and the subsequent ‘Muslim’ refugee problem that’s now swamping Europe?

Any regrets, Mr. Steyn?–or must Islam be reformed yet again via drone strikes and ballistic missiles?

Please let us know know if you think these wars (or the next one) are a wise investment at four trillion dollars. We’re all dying to know your opinion!

And since you’re both ‘pro-freedom’, what are your opinions, Mr. Steyn and Mr. Derbyshire, of the curious laws now on the books throughout the glorious, democratic ‘West’, that proscribe the arrest (and imprisonment) of citizens who dispute the official death count of one particular ethnic group during WWII?

If you support these lingering ‘special protections’, why not arrest people who advocate for wholesale, foreign invasions and premeditated mass murder?–or is that getting too close to home?

Steyn has the unmistakable stench of an Anglo-Israeli. In his neocon world, not only can Israel can do no wrong, but the interests of Israel invariably line up with the interests of all Western democracies. Oh sure. If only it were true.

Well the process of “America Alone” began after WWII, when American began it “Empire building” in the Middle East, Africa and Asia in order to loot foreign natural resources and to protect its illegitimate child in Palestine. It was after the “Israel Did 9/11” that people like Mark Steyn (a Jewish convert to Christianity) and Tarek Fateh (a Muslim Zionist) realized that the only way to build a profitable career would be to get into B’nai B’rith’s “Good Donkeys” book by bashing Muslims and Islam. Thanks G-d it worked for those two idiots and they also became models for John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan and Dr. Kevin McDonald.

Haroon Siddiqui, former editorial editor at The Toronto Star used call such morons “Jingoists” NOT “journalists”.

who cares about marc steyn’s book? who gives a flip about marc stain.
america alone should mean jews like stain stop manipulating american policy in favor of israel and jew interests
ms, return to canada and bounce your head off your synagogue wall.
america doesnt need you or your bs.

I don’t see what’s so maniacal about Derbyshire’s position on those questions- he didn’t suggest just picking places and bombing them to rubble for no good reason [and forcing them to adopt our way of life for its own sake would count as that]. They had to have had it coming for his rubble-button to get pushed.

So the Derb position doesn’t in fact count as “deserve’s got nuthin’ to do with it”.

It definitely makes more sense than “you break it, you bought it”. I am amazed that a retail merchandiser’s product security slogan, refracted through a throwaway line by a moderately capable politician, so quickly became a truism cited as thought it was brought down from Sinai or appeared in the Vedas.

Steyn also appeared to draw the wrong lessons from some of those examples. For Chechnya, he may have a point.

But Bosnia? An ethnic civil war in which the Bosniaks came off the worst for inferior preparedness despite their leaders having contributed to the course of events, in which their persecutors were not the west but merely their neighbours, and in which western interference ultimately saved them from that threat and turned their Serb neighbours into rubble, and yet somehow the resulting radicalization is turned into anti-Western jihadism. Soooo, helping Muslims gains us nothing.

The ‘rubble of Afghanistan’ that turned it into a terrorist training camp was rubble piled up by Afghans killing Afghans for Afghan reasons. Not rubble generated by the west. Not even by the Russians, for that matter. They left Afghanistan’s physical plant, at least, in respectable condition. So, apparently leaving Muslims alone to settle their own affairs as they see fit also gains us nothing. [Except adolescent whining about how America helped them defeat the Russians and then “abandoned them”. Apparently running their own country to their own satisfaction eluded them, as indeed it still does.]

For that matter the rubble of Somalia, also caused by its own people originally, also at first posed no larger threat to anyone. It was made worse by repeated interventions, carried out for variously humanitarian and strategic reasons. Even now it poses mainly a modest threat to neighbours, plus the piracy threat in the northwestern Arabian sea. That latter is the only real threat to western interests, and can be managed without fixing Somalia.

So while I share the theoretical concern that rubble countries can be problem generators, it doesn’t always work that way and, when it does, it can often be fixed or at least managed without undue cost, and without going in and sorting these peoples ourselves.

Derbyshire didn’t say anything about genocide. There is a vast logistical gap between bombing a country into rubble and actually setting out to exterminate its population. Let alone actually succeeding in doing so.

It’s the difference between what the British and Americans did to Germany in 1944-45 and what the Germans had been trying to do in the couple of years before that. Given the percentages of the targeted peoples killed/survived, it’s pretty clear that if the British were aiming for genocide they were not doing a good job where the Germans understood that they had to get both more efficient and more personal.

When the group being attacked gets demonized via the usual propaganda campaign. Then they’re just subhumans who deserve to be annihilated. This is true of every single group around the world that’s been attacked by the US in the past hundred or so years.

As Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple would say ..”do you suppose, might it be possible” that if we stopped bombing countries in the ME and quit interfering in their business, that some of the muslim problem might resolve itself?

How to do a genocide and get away with it? Do it British and American way. Don’t do it German or Japanese way. Or if you really want to do it German way be sure to win a war. Then you will get away with it as well.

Bosnia was destroyed because European White racists are very paranoid of a Muslim-majority state in Europe. The US and NATO only got involved in Bosnia when they realized that Bosnians turned table against Serb and Croat aggression, and started recapturing their land from the Christian invaders.

Afghanistan was destroyed to destroy Soviet Union as a world power and build a pipeline from Caspian Sea to Gwadar port (Pakistan) and from there oil shipped to Israel’s Haifa refinery.

Bolden by the break-up of Ukraine as result of the US-Russia imperial agenda in East Europe, Dodik has called the two-state solution of BH by the US sponsored anti-Muslim Dayton Peace Accord, “an impossible set-up to govern.”

Dodik has announced to hold a referendum on the anniversary of Dayton Accord with only one question: “Do you support the legality of union with Bosniak-Croat Federation.” Many observers in RP have claimed it to be an independence referendum which will give Dodik the power to obstruct the laws and institutions of the central government in Sarajevo.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has thrown his support behind Dodik as Moscow considers Dayton Accord as a Western challenge to Russia’s historic domination of the Balkans where Muslims make a majority.

No, Derb. “We” did not win. The United States won that war. Which is why you are in the USA now. Europe, including the British Isles, are vassal states. That’s what happens when you ally yourself to a stronger power in order to defeat your rival.

mauritania is far more racist , the darker 600,000 of its population are actual slaves . converting from islam to christianity will get you the death penalty in 14 islamic countries , however converting from christianity to islam carries no penalty . a rather severe form of aparthied indeed . i know your jealousy of jews is obsession level but there have been many advancements in psych meds . do acquire some , pretty please .

The big thing Steyn got wrong is right up front with the Derb-fence Muslims in their countries, harden ports and airports, don’t issue visas,and get rid of, either with incentives or discouragement, Islamic people who are already here. Trying to have more of us with more of them makes no sense; it’s some counter-Malthusian silliness. Japan has less than zero population growth but no issue with quality of life nor any Muslims. Israel is trying to outbreed Palestinians but that hasn’t made things more peaceful. Fewer people using the same resources coupled with advances in technology like Japan now has avoids some of the issues we face with unemployment and underemployment.

Japan can survive with a fertility rate of 1.6 because 99% of their population is Japanese.
while in Germany, France and the UK the muslim population among the youth (those under the age of 30) is already 10%

9% of the children born in Germany since 2003 have at least one Muslim parent. While Germans have had a fertility rate below 1.5 for 25 years, the muslims in Germany have fertility rates closer to 3.

any hope of keeping Germany a nation for Germans will require an increase in their fertility rate to above 2 while at the same time they must significantly reduce immigration.

He doesn’t even name the city that should be leveled. He just savors the idea of meting out death, “Ah, but Mark, there is rubble, and there is rubble. Of the 13th-century Mongol horde it was said that when they had once bestowed their attentions on a city…”

A couple of days ago he did give an example of who had it coming, Iran. The Derb is disappointed that Obama didn’t give the order to kill God knows how many Iranians for the crime of stopping two US military dinghies in Iranian waters.

Does he not suppose — as someone else said — that the Iranians can conger up reasons at least as good to level our cities and sink our ships?

Maybe neither of these clannish, Semitic peoples are a particularly good fit for America or the West. Can we talk about it?

Sure we can, but listing all the contributions we Jews have made to your “West” would blow out Ron Unz’s disk storage budget. More economical to refer you to…well, just start by pulling a random book off the shelf at your public library, and take it from there.

Still, I can’t resist mentioning one particular contribution of ours because it’s something so glaringly missing from your rant and the others like it here: a sense of humor.

British historian A. J. P. Taylor once remarked something to the effect that if the Germans had been as effective in segregating and liquidating their antagonists as the Americans had successfully segregated and liquidated their American Indians, contemporary Germany would be the home of the United Nations and peace conferences. His actual remarks were better phrased, and I don’t recall the context or year.

The Bosnian Muslims are white Europeans themselves. What a ridiculous comment. As for “Christian invaders” the whole of the Balkans was Christian for many centuries before Muslim INVADERS arrived there.

Agreed. The problem is not low fertility rates (although having a good replacement birthrate level is not a bad thing). The problem is population replacement. With zero immigration this is not a problem. This is why Japan is in good shape and Europe is not. Japan simply doesn’t let Muslims (or hardly anybody else for that matter) settle in its home islands. Thus Japan fifty years from now, will still be Japanese, with a bit more elbow room. Europe will be like Lebanon or worse.

Oh, c’mon – Patrick Buchanan is one of the good guys, and he writes perfectly decent, workman-like prose – but he’s no artist. Steyn is an artist. If you doubt this, just read his obituary for the onetime president of Zimbabwe, Reverend Canaan Banana – and try not to laugh.

“…at State House one night the President had slipped a sleeping draught into his drink. Mr Dube came round to find himself on a duvet naked from the waist down, with a smiling President Banana hovering over him. ‘While you were sleeping,’ said the President, ‘we helped ourselves’ – not the words a chap wants to wake up to…”

Anybody here who doesn’t read Mark Steyn every day ’cause he thinks the guy got this or that wrong in the past just needs to get over it. Steyn is a brilliant thinker & a brilliant writer, with a big audience, who regularly reads & links to ISteve – even including the comments!

He has also shown genuine courage in the face of quite real physical danger, showing up at events where most others (quite understandably) dropped out for fear of murderous muslims.

Lots of people expect that below replacement fertility will quickly lead to population declines. In fact, it usually takes generations to achieve that. Japan has been below replacement fertility for three generations and only started slowly declining in population after 2010.

Steyn obviously did his math thinking that population declines start right away without taking age structure into account. He’s not wrong that population will decline. He’s just mathematically illiterate or trusting an analyst who’s mathematically illiterate.

There is literally no sane set of assumptions that could justify his original predictions short of assuming a third world war. Therefore we know that his predictions are based on fundamental error and were not merely wrong because he guessed wrongly about the process of history.

It’s one thing to predict the score of the Super Bowl will be 31-17 and to be wrong: That means you didn’t predict the play well. It’s another thing to predict that the score will be Blue-Potato: That means you don’t even understand that football is a sport. Steyn’s error is of the second sort.

The difference is the US killed off only a few million at most. Germany had to kill off tens of millions if not hundreds. A lot of big ridiculous numbers get thrown around about how many Indians were killed. However, where is the evidence of any large scale settlements? The amount killed in battles by US soldiers is really very small and the accounts of events like the Trail of Tears the Cherokee was subjected to is not a large number of people (less than 20,000).

You mean like Marx, Lenin, Rosenbaum (aka Ayn Rand), Freud, Soros, Frankfurt school, being known as crooks and corrupt, causing the death of hundreds of millions, bribing politicians, spearheading 3rd world immigration into white lands, fire bombing white cities, funding degenerate art and culture, creating PC culture, pushing the myth of racial equality, siphoning billions of tax money from whites – actually the list of jew damage blows out almost everyones budget.
There has been nothing more destructive to whites than jews, nothing even comes close.

Speaking of humour, I have some for you:
How did German men pick up Jewish women in the 1940s? With a dustpan and brush

“The time of the Cuckservative is over. The Age of the Shitlord has come!”

You’re right about that but I’ll go with Marine Le Pen’s more gracious wording: “the division is not between left and right but between globalists and patriots”. Globalism is the biggest problem now and there’s nothing more globalist than mainstream Anglospherical conservatism. Mark Steyn is a high priest of that low cult.

I can no longer stand even the sight of mainstream Anglosphere conservative commentators even though I’d still describe myself as some sort of Irish-Canadian Tory. It reminds me of what the French Jewish intellectual, Raymond Aron once said but in reverse. He said “I feel closer to a French anti-Semite than to a Yemeni Jew” but I’m of the opposite view when I think of my former teammates in conservatism. I prefer the French anti-Semite, the Yemeni Jew, the Donbass separatist, the Hungarian patriot and almost anyone over these cuckservative hacks and smug little messenger boys for the globalists. Notice too how they’re even physically repulsive. David Frum looks like he leaves a trail of slime behind him wherever he goes.

The one good thing you can say in Steyn’s favour is that at least he’s not Walter Russell Mead.

Or numerous Bernie Madoffs, or Israeli manipulation and financial theft and blackmail. I could go on and on. You itty people have been expelled from countries repeatedly because of your Talmudic misdeeds. Nothing to brag about, worm!

There has been nothing more destructive to whites than jews, nothing even comes close.”

You’re conveniently forgetting those lovable Europeans that colonized the Americas, Africa, and Asia, bringing in warfare and disease to hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars of environmental and continental damage. Nothing even comes close.

“The thesis of the book was that Europe is doomed due to collapsing fertility among the indigenes and mass Muslim immigration, so that the U.S.A. will be left standing alone at last as the sole refuge of Western Civilization.”

It never ceases to amaze me with this meme by of “Western Civilization” by a number of odd ducks. Generally speaking, white Americans do not think of this broad construct; rather, they view themselves as citizens of a country, the United States, who are of a particular race and ethnicity.

“Our only hope, therefore, says Steyn, is in the reform of Islam. Yet this is not ours to do. “

This is where Steyn goes off the rails. He assumes that one particular religion, in this case Islam, is “worse” or “degenerative” or “evil” compared to other religions and thus is in desperate need of changes. Praytell, what metrics are employed in making this determination?

Be mindful that Islam embraces patriarchy, with all the trimmings. The good old days in which a man could be a man and a woman without question knew her place. In this manner, those conservatives who harken back to the 1950’s of the “perfect family”–which is a myth if one reviews the sociological literature–seek the return of that society.

“And the immivasion itself has to some degree made honestly more difficult.”

There has not been this “immivasion”. Governments have created immigration policies through elective representatives that reflect the majority beliefs of their citizens. Should those views change, of course there is redress of grievances. But, remember everyone, Europeans weren’t “wanted” in the Western Hemisphere by natives. These “noble savages”, however, needed to be tamed, and their precious resources tapped to ensure the development of Europe. How “civilized”.

marwan–“like the islamic mobs raping christian women in cologne.
[one mob]…the continued genocide of papuan christians by islamist indonesia [who were returning the favor]…continued apartheid in every majority islamic country [called patriarchy]…continued terrorist massacres of civilians like san bernardino and preshawar school masacre [considering the overall scope of things, these events are isolated].

Diversity Heretic–The direction in Islam seems to be in the direction of more explicit aggression against non-Muslims, doesn’t it?

And its converse, the direction in non-Muslims, specifically racialcrats, seems to be in the direction of more explicit aggression against Muslims.

Wow! The Mongols no less as the moral exemplars of how to conduct war – beautiful! And Muslims are supposed to be the violent ones??? There were other things they did before turning the city to rubble – maybe we should have our expeditionary forces gang rape anything on two legs before we finally roll out the bombs – I mean why waste warm flesh, right?

Please note that the Mongol horde were so universally abhorred and feared that even the Crusader kingdoms had a cautious neutrality with the Egyptian Mamelukes that allowed the Mameluke army to cross through their territory unmolested in order to hand the Mongols their first-ever defeat in pitched battle – at Ain-Jalut.

This is not to speak of the thousands upon thousands of Christian souls that cry out for justice from centuries past as many of those same places referred to dismissively as ‘rubble’ that the Mongols left behind were their mass graves.

The direction in the salafi-wahhabi-jihadist reformation is certainly in the direction of more explicit aggression against Muslims and non-Muslims.

These people have committed atrocities in European and American cities, no doubt, but in purely mathematical terms those are cups of blood compared to the gallons upon gallons they are spilling within Muslim lands. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim whether in universities in Pakistan, police academies in Tunisia, tea shops in Somalia, etc. They are an anathema to the human race.

And then there were the Jews…something, something…and the neocons, something, something, and the Bushes.. something, something..there was Israel, something, something, and the Jews, something, something. Always the Jews. Always the neocons.

Know what is always there? CAIR. Always Muslims. Always Syrians, ISIS, always rapist Muslims in Europe. Always the Muslims. And if we gentiles ever raise a stink about it? We go right back to Jews and Neocons. Civilized people raise objections to Islamist cavemen and always, Islamist cavemen complaining of Jews, of neocons.

That filthy, corrupt, terrorist, murdering Islamist, Muslim, Dindu train is never, ever, late. Animals, all, can’t build a mud hut against an earthquake, but we are to treat low IQ Muslims as equals. Idiotic morons and worthless at that. Islam has created nothing, Muslims are dirt from top to bottom, but always, it is the Jews who create an oasis from the desert, all is their fault. Muslims are creeps. Get it through your thick skulls. Jews build great civilizations. Muslims build nothing.

With less than half the children in America white, and thus whites now guaranteed to be an ever smaller minority in the United States, I’d say the U.S. is further down the path to disintegration than the European countries are. To be sure, most of the non-whites are not Muslims, so we’ll likely avoid the imposition of sharia law, but there is no longer any sense of Americans as having a shared history or being a united people. A “proposition” or two is a mighty slender reed upon which to base a nation. Don’t be surprised when it breaks.

Pearls before swine vinteuil. Look at the reasons given for discounting Steyn-Karlin’s embarassing penchant for papering over Russina weakness is expected, but one person won’t read Steyn because he won’t talk about the “Jewish Problem.”

Steyn’s no more a neo-con than Derbyshire. He’s got a brood of kids, lives in rustic NH and has spent the past two months all in in support of Trump.

What is your take on the latest atrocity on Bacha Khan University? Did they attack it because of who it is named after or was there some other motive? They were essentially killing Pashtun boys, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I have visited India a number of times and there is a belief among Indians (including Indian Muslims) that Pakistan will never be able to put an end to terrorism as the whole establishment is “invested” in it (meaning the military). And the “militants” are far too closely mixed up with the ISI to ever stop getting state support. You make another interesting point about these types killing a lot of Muslims. About 25 per cent of the people killed during the attack on Bombay (now Mumbai) on 26 November 2008 were Indian Muslims (although these types would consider them heretics).

Thanks. I was in my thirties before I fully understood Taylor’s “Origins of the Second World War”, which I’d bought in my late teens. I was working as a minor political operative, and saw up close how politicians calculate prospects within a fog of imperfect information, factionalism, direct opposition, their own weaknesses, etc. Fascinating, but not pretty; I’ve voted Libertarian ever since. Until that work experience, I didn’t understand how contingent or accidental historical events are, which I think Taylor made clear in “Origins . . .”.

TL:DR version- On Iran, Derb was off his nut the other day. Should have had some chamomile tea. But the rubble argument is a valid one where and when valid grounds for military intervention may exist, and better than what the US has actually tried to do.

Longer version:

I disagreed with his ridiculous overreaction to the Gulf incident as well. I figure the Iranians get to react like any country would when at least vaguely hostile foreigners violate their territorial waters.

So far as I have read [which is not deeply] they did not physically abuse their captives and the implied humiliation of the photos, while outré by our standards, does not obviously appear to have gone that far. Were I American, I might object to that part a bit. But the seizure of the boat and temporary holding of the crew appear to have been totally legit. Nor are they obliged to apply specific Geneva provisions in the absence of war, the same absence of war that negated Derb’s ranting about the crew being derelict for not fighting back.

[Then again, if Iran were at war with one of its neighbours, say Iraq back in the day or Saudi next week, and a US intelligence ship in the international waters of the Gulf happened to be (by reasonable supposition) spying on them, I’d probably also forgive them if an Iranian pilot were to say ‘oops’ and launch a few missiles at said ship and then claim it was a mistake. That’s the risks you take when you are cruising about someone else’s war zone. I do not mean that in any way as an argument against so cruising if there is some US intelligence interest to be served. I only mean that obvious risks are being deliberately assumed by noncombatant civilians or noncombatant third-party military operating in a war zone and combatants have the right to at least one freebie when people meddle in their wars. That also applies to the USS Liberty and, for that matter, to the American civilians travelling on RMS Lusitania. It’s also the rough analogue of the USS Stark and that Iranian airliner, although then I expect it really was a mistake. And the Iranians probably knew that too, since it would be hard to come up with even a cynical good reason for the US to take such a PR hit intentionally. It even applies to MH17 [I get the flight numbers mixed up- the one over Ukraine]. Granted, long-haul airliners flying at that height do generally get considered immune when flying over war zones, otherwise much of world air traffic would be getting rerouted every day. But it was still a risk flying over a battle zone.]

But I digress. I mainly would stress that in the Iran case, Derb was off his nut. If the US craft had been in international waters, it would be different. Then the Iranians, absent a state of war, would have been guilty of piracy. But it seems they were within their sovereign rights, as any country would be.

But the rubble argument was one Derb made long ago wrt Afghanistan and Iraq, specifically arguing against the prospect of long and costly nation-building exercises/military occupations, particularly in countries where these had low prospect of accomplishing much. He was explicitly arguing against ‘you break it, you bought it’ advocates.

Neither catchphrase is free of problems. And Steyn’s criticism of the rubble argument is not without foundation. But in practice most of the arguments Steyn used were not countries in which the trouble came from countries whose rubble was originally the fault of the west, and so were poor arguments against the idea that the West could use force without ‘buying’ the wreckage.

In the case of Iraq, Iraq’s undisputed violations of the 1991 ceasefire agreement under which it was operating would historically have been a casus belli, whether or not they really had any WMDs. But I agree that the US interests being served and the enforcement of that agreement likely did not justify the US invasion as a matter of pragmatism, in the absence of their actually having any WMDs. But those violations probably did justify some sort of more aggressive than usual violent action by way of reinforcing the need for compliance. That’s normally how it works when you have a defeated country violating the conditions imposed on its sovereignty as the price of a truce. Arguably, this position would have been consistent with the rubble-based approach to military intervention, more so than a decade long useless nation-building war.

In the case of Afghanistan, the government in power provided sanctuary to enemies planning an actual attack on the US. That’s a casus belli any time. Some statesmen would argue for having accepted the Taliban’s offer to hand AQ over and leave it at that, and I respect that. But that would have been a charitable response by the US, one it should only have made if it considered this the course in its own best interest. The Taliban had fully earned a military response. And their gambit of offering to hand AQ over if the US provided proof was an obvious tactical delaying move, since it would have required the US to hand over intelligence and provide ‘proof’ to whatever standard satisfied the Taliban for a situation in which responsibility was not denied by the perpetrators. The US had a casus belli in 2001 against the Afghan government in power if any country ever had one. And if the US had pretty much done everything it did in 2001 and into 2002 and then just left the Afghans to get on with it, whether that meant a pro-US government or a Taliban one, that would have been fine. It would have been cheaper in US money and lives to intervene 3 times over the next ten years, or more, until the Afghans learned the lesson, than to stay the whole intervening time in a pointless effort to make Afghanistan into Iowa. Or even Florida.

The country I would say has the best reason to do bad things in the US, at least until recently, would actually be Cuba. The US role in the Bay of Pigs or attempts on the life of Castro [if the Cubans knew about them at the time; I don’t know] were in every case a valid casus belli for Cuba against the US. Lots of Central American countries too.

It gets murkier when US manipulation is deeper behind the scenes and involves domestic players who themselves have domestic legitimacy. In 1953, the US backed a power play against Mossadegh by the Shah. But nobody in either country at the time questioned the legitimacy of the Shah to be Shah, and there was a case to be made that he acted in accordance with the scope of his office. His father had passed him a rather powerful position, and if Mossadegh had the right to use the power of a PM to undermine the Shah, then the Shah had the right to retaliate. US involvement was extraconstitutional, but I don’t know that it constituted a casus belli for the Iranian state against the US. The Shah was at least as much the Iranian state as Mossadegh was. [For comparison, it appears that foreigners do try to manipulate outcomes of US presidential elections behind the scenes, at least using Indonesian, Chinese, or Mexican cash to support the Clintons in the day. I don’t know that that, even played more aggressively and with state involvement, would necessarily be a casus belli for the US against these countries. The key players and beneficiaries would still be Americans. There’d be a case against them.]

Absent 1953, and unless it is the Stark incident, I’m not sure exactly when the US has given Iran a real casus belli. At least, nowhere near as good a one as the Iranians gave the US in 1979. Historically, that sort of thing often led to war. Seizing embassies and holding diplomats hostage is WAY out there on the cliff edge.

1. Attempt to denaturalize, lock up or kill Indians who assimilated to American culture [there were some] the way Germans did with so many German citizen Jews who lacked powerful Aryan patrons [in their stated ideal world, it would have been all German Jews].

2. Attempt to run a blood-based registry system to identify and expunge such Indians from American life.

3. Once they had conquered all the territory and put the Indians on reservations in slovenly conditions, then proceed to gas them all and burn the corpses in big ovens, with the explicit goal of killing every last one of them.

4. Actually come close to killing all of them by deliberate murder. [see below].

It’s also worth noting that, despite it having its own racist and imperialist connotations, and despite all the killing and theft that went with it in practice, the actual US policy toward the Indians was always either ‘let’s assimilate these savages and prepare them to live like us’ or at worst ‘let’s confine these savages to crappy reservations and ignore them.’

Not quite the same as the German policy of ‘let’s take these wholly assimilated and exquisitely civilized German citizens and [at best] abuse them, take their stuff and expel them or put them in camps’ followed by ‘let’s take all these also civilized and assimilated citizens of equally advanced countries like France, Italy or Hungary [or Denmark] and do the same to them’ and ‘let’s take all these to our lights a bit sordid but no less civilized than their neighbours citizens of eastern Europe and do the same to them’ and, at last, ‘hey, wouldn’t it be easier if we just killed them all so there were none left in Europe at all? Ja, let’s do that!’

WRT 4, Wikipedia’s sources [can’t claim to know their quality] suggest 600,000 Indians in all of the present-day US in 1800. And only 250,000 in the 1890s. No idea how much of that was the result of direct killing, or even of hunger and disease deaths incident to deliberate US policies. The narrative would suggest that a lot of it was just disease incident to underdeveloped smallpox immunity, and notes that as early as 1832 the US instituted some vaccination programmes. These numbers, context, and the vaccination programme are not comparable to either the scale or objectives of German policy, which killed more people both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of defined population, with deliberation and planning, and by direct means, and certainly was not attended by radical public health interventions.

I also have a hard time believing that, in the event of German victory, the nearly eliminated Jewish population of Europe would have bounced back so well as Indians have done in America, at least in numbers.

Then again, Taylor was a well-known smartass in the Oxbridge tradition and probably felt he needed to water down his usually anti-German line.

The latest info suggests Ashkenazi Jews are a 2000 year old Italo-Semitic blend, which would make them both Europeans and Israelites, with some kind of claim to be at home in both. The Khazar hypothesis hasn’t held up as well.

But you seem to be arguing that Bosnians, even if descended from Turks, are rightly considered ‘white’. I agree, as it happens. Those I have met look much as other Balkan mostly-Slavs I have met. Khazars were also a Turkic people, so I guess that would make even a Khazar-based Jewish population also ‘white’.

I am of the realist school of thought that agrees from the Left (like Chomsky) and the Right (like Dr. Ron Paul – if he can be considered ‘Right’) that if someone commits a crime, admits guilt for it and announces their motivations; you can pretty much take them at face value. In fact, they are probably admitting guilt for the express purpose of letting their intentions/motivations be known, otherwise they would hide.

Looks like they have two grievances:
1) “We will continue to attack schools, colleges and universities across Pakistan as these are the foundations that produce apostates. We will target and demolish the foundations…” – this of course is the everyone but us is wrong, we are the saved sect business. This is a metastasis of an ultra-extremist franchise group from the TTP extremists who are even saying these guys have gone too far. This is what al-Qaeda has been saying about ISIS. Once you cross the boundary of extremism, well, is there really an upper boundary? Probably can’t do anything to remedy this grievance unless you basically follow their specific edicts/opinions to the letter.
2) “If our women and children died as martyrs your children will not escape. If you attack us we will take revenge for the innocents…” – this one has more traction and is something that can have something done about it. As you probably know, Pakistan is involved in a war against insurgent groups and terrorists (sometimes the lines are blurred) in its Northwest Province. The military can be heavy handed in their approach, for instance inaccurate artillery shelling, bombing, etc. that no doubt causes collateral damage. Some of the survivors will have the spiritual strength to forgive and others will not and will seek out revenge via these sort of groups. This DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT (crimes of one party do not excuse the crimes of another), but we are talking about analyzing motivations here and trying to mitigate causes to prevent future tragedies. If Pakistan can be less indiscriminate in its execution of this war, it may be able to sweep the rug from under the feet of at least those who are motivated (not by ideology), but by revenge.

And yes, this is a beast that ISI wanted to control in its nascency, but it is out of the cage now. A warning for all that would like to manipulate extremism for short-term benefit.

The citizenry of Pakistan is pretty well armed and it looks like civilians are getting motivated to take self-defense into their own hands.

The Europeans did the greatest damage to the Americas when they inadvertently brought smallpox and a few other diseases, which then raced far ahead of colonization, let alone of anything like deliberate action or policy. So the bringing in disease was kind of a happy or catastrophic accident, depending on who your ancestors were.

They only introduced nifty technology to American warfare. They certainly did not introduce warfare to the Americas.

As to Africa and Asia, Europeans introduced neither disease nor warfare to these continents. Both were and remain massive disease reservoirs capable of producing things that might wipe out Europeans at some point. Asian disease nearly has, a couple of times. The Spanish colonizers in central Mexico in 1519-21 didn’t know they had set the ball rolling to depopulate the Americas any more than some sad sack Chinese trader in [say] Samarkand knew one of his animals was about to transmit the Plague westward in the seventh century or the 14th. And both Africa and Asia were exceptionally familiar with and good at warfare before any Europeans showed up. The Asians, world beaters at this as with disease generation, had shown up in Europe a few times already.

And I like trees and grassland as much as the next guy, but I like contemporary North America just fine. The damage to the environment buys me a life other than that of a Neolithic farmer.

I’d appreciate anyone who was there correcting me, but I hadn’t been left with the impression that the patriarchal and conservative America of the 1950s resembled even traditional Islam all that closely.

Certainly Sayyid Qutb famously thought of early 20th century America as a libertarian, hedonistic, women-out-of-control hellhole. His frame of reference was quite different.

All good buddy. Hope the same with you as well. Fridays are a real relief – though I am not religious and don’t pray, the last day of the working week ends with some degree of relief.

You make some very interesting points. You know what I find interesting is that Pakistan didn’t have to end up this way. Jinnah, from what I have read, didn’t want a country falling into the hands of fanatics. He, from what I can read of him (though I am not very well informed and have never been able to grasp Hindi or Urdu well despite repeated trips to India), wanted a modern state in which religious observance was a private matter between the citizen and God. Does this make sense? To the extent that he encouraged some partisan behaviour against Hindus and Sikhs, I believe this was more tactical and political rather than a belief that he wanted to kill people he regarded as apostates. And his own religious sect is struggling to survive in Pakistan today. Such is the irony!

Even among the Pashtuns, I think this extreme Wahhabist fanaticism is a relatively recent occurrence. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan himself was no fanatic as we all know. This lunacy appears to have started with the CIA and Saudis (ALWAYS a lethal combination) funding and aiding Wahhabists in Pakistan to use them as tools against the Soviets. Would you agree with this? I am reasonably familiar with Pakistan and see little evidence of this kind of extreme religious lunacy before the Soviet-Afghan war. But after Zia started flirting with these extremists, things seem to have spun out of control.

“Surely they were *beneficial* to European interests, so you’ve not countered his point at all.”

Neutral’s point was that destruction and mayhem is somehow under the exclusive domain of the usual “lefty” suspects. I gently reminded him that if he going to paint broad strokes, he ought to ensure the inclusion of European death-mongerers.

“‘Jews are bad for Europeans’ isn’t countered by ‘Europeans are bad’ – they could both be true.”

I lived in Pakistan (as a child) during General Zia’s administration – so, maybe for nostalgic purposes, I have a soft spot for him.

But I believe you are correct. The Saudi-Pakistan alliance (over decades) has led to some horrible results with extremist ideology permeating the madrassas. It also doesn’t help that Pakistan and India have been on war-footing for most of their young nation-state histories. I’m hoping that this recent de-escalation will help things – of course, you have the die-hards who don’t want peace and diplomacy to win out. Let’s face it, just like the military industrial complex in the US, it exists in its local flavor in other countries.

Islam has always been the raison d’etre for Pakistan, and I doubt that will change in its character. Jinnah (God have mercy on him) may have helped found the country, but he hardly represents the common, average Pakistani who is Sunni and far removed from an elite British education – so I don’t know if the idea of a secular Pakistan will ever truly come to pass – though some of the highest secular positions of office have been held by non-Muslims:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_Pakistan

Pakistan is the inheritor of a very rich Sufi tradition through the saints of Persia, India and Transoxiana – it is a shame to see it going down the road of extremism. If there is a good thing coming out of these events – it is that this is giving the common man an allergic reaction to the idea of coddling extremists for the sake of ‘national security’.

The number of Amerindians living in the US at the time of Columbus was probably about 1-1.5 million. The West Coast and the Southwest had by far the greatest number of Amerindians. Smallpox and other diseases killed far more Amerindians than were killed directly by whites.

Deforestation in the US reached it’s peak about the middle of the 19th century. With the development of modern methods of agriculture a smaller proportion of the land in the US is devoted to agriculture than formerly, resulting in gradual reforestation. To be sure there was definitely a lot more forest in 1492 that today.

“Just to start how about keeping a white majority in all majority white countries for one thing.”

Not all whites feel that way, only the racialocrats. Are these whites traitors because they exercise their freedom to think differently? Must ALL whites ultimately see race from your perspective, as if you have the monopoly of logic and common sense?

Besides, you have a wide range of areas to reside in currently in the United States where there is a white majority. Those areas will continue to exist. Feel free to move there and work to keep it white.

“The Europeans did the greatest damage to the Americas when they inadvertently brought smallpox and a few other diseases, which then raced far ahead of colonization, let alone of anything like deliberate action or policy.”

The Spanish were quite deliberate in their colonization policy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda

“With the ouster of Christopher Columbus, the Spanish crown sent a royal governor, Fray Nicolás de Ovando, who established the formal encomienda system. In many cases natives were forced to do hard labor and subjected to extreme punishment and death if they resisted.[2] However, Queen Isabella of Castile had forbidden Indian slavery and deemed the indigenous “free vassals of the crown,” allowing many natives and Spaniards to appeal to the Real Audiencias. Encomiendas were often characterized by the geographical displacement of those enslaved and the breakup of communities and family units, but the encomienda in Mexico functioned to rule these free vassals of the crown via existing community hierarchies, with the indigenous not forced permanently from their families, homes, and land. ”

“They only introduced nifty technology to American warfare. They certainly did not introduce warfare to the Americas.”

Europeans introduced their own version of warfare to the Americans, complete with land-grabbing and resource pillaging.

Disease ran rampant on African slave ships. As I stated earlier, Europeans brought in their brand of war to Africa with devastating effect.

“The Spanish colonizers in central Mexico in 1519-21 didn’t know they had set the ball rolling to depopulate the Americas any more than some sad sack Chinese trader in [say] Samarkand knew one of his animals was about to transmit the Plague westward in the seventh century or the 14th.”

Conquistadors assuredly set in motion, with their guile and guts, the downfall of two civilizations with the capture of both Moctezuma (a.k.a. Montezuma), the god-king of the Aztecs in Mexico, and Atahaulpa, the last Incan Emperor in Peru and begin the process of conquering natives for gold.

“And both Africa and Asia were exceptionally familiar with and good at warfare before any Europeans showed up.”

And when the Europeans showed up, it was game over due to their technological prowess.

“I’d appreciate anyone who was there correcting me, but I hadn’t been left with the impression that the patriarchal and conservative America of the 1950s resembled even traditional Islam all that closely.”

Traditional Islam and 1950’s conservative America are cut from the same cloth–The husband leads, the wife submits, and the children obey. Christian Patriarchy, like Muslim Patriarchy, are
complimentary in their emphasis on women offering absolute obedience to their male authorities.

[Even among the Pashtuns, I think this extreme Wahhabist fanaticism is a relatively recent occurrence]

Well, it has become periodically inflamed ever since the time of the Raj. But you are right that it can be seen as just one expression of the fissiparous, anarchic, every-man-a-king nature of Pathan society. The British felt they understood Baluchis pretty well – they seemed like Highland Scots – but they could find no analogy or template for the Pathans.

Corvinus, I appreciate your contribution to the site in that you call out people for making grossly undefined absolute statements (without factual backing) like “All Whites feel..” and the tendencies for the forum to degenerate into a let’s-pile-on-the-Jews-fest. However, I have to (with all due respect) call you out on the statement:

Christian Patriarchy, like Muslim Patriarchy, are
complimentary in their emphasis on women offering absolute obedience to their male authorities.

I cannot speak for Christian Patriarchy or the civil law codes of the 1950’s US other than movies I’ve seen, so I cannot ascertain the truth to that portion of the statement. From what I have studied, and continue to study, in Islamic Law at the feet of traditional Sunni Hanafi scholars – I can say that the general import of the statement “The husband leads, the wife submits, and the children obey” is a generally true statement of the spirit of the relations in the family life, but this can hardly be translated into absolute obedience as far as the wife is concerned. For instance, though the wife is supposed to listen to the husband in general she has no obligation to obey him in the following circumstances (this is not a comprehensive list):
1. Anything that entails disobedience to God.
2. Anything that entails harm to her person.
3. Anything that pertains to expenditure of her own personal property or finances (whether inherited or earned).
4. Anything that entails serving him (cooking, baking, cleaning, etc.) – this is the majority opinion in the three schools (Shafi’i, Hanbali, Maliki), the Hanafi school being the only one that obligates these on her as a wife’s customary duties (and even then, she is only sinful if she does not – a court cannot compel her) – and the exception to this rule even in the Hanafi school is if she comes from an upper class family who is not accustomed to these tasks, then she is not obligated and has to either be provided a servant or items like already-prepared meals.
5. Breastfeeding her own child – again, she may be sinful if she does not, but cannot be legally compelled to (unless she agrees to remuneration) – the husband’s only legal option is to hire a nursemaid.
6. If she is is Christian/Jewish, anything that proscribes her religious practice (visiting church, prayers, etc.)
7. If she is Christian/Jewish, anything that proscribes her from indulging in practices that are allowed to her in her religion (drinking wine, eating pork, etc.) – for the Malikis, this is absolute, some of the other schools have certain restrictions, such as, as long as she doesn’t get drunk, etc.

I believe that list (again, not comprehensive) should at least put a dent in the general application of the term absolute obedience.

My sources are traditional Sunni manuals of law; like Umdat us-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) by the 14th century Shafi’i scholar, Ahmad al-Misri, Beheshti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments) by the Sufi/Scholar of British-Raj India, Muhammad Thanavi (with citations to earlier works from Ibn Abidin and al-Haskafi – who are known from the East to the West among the Hanafis), Taj wal-Iklil (The Crown and the Trophy), by the Maliki jurist al-Muwaq, and Ma’arif ul Qur’an (Knowledge of the Qur’an) by the late Mufti Muhammad Shafi’i (who was the late Mufti of Pakistan – and though this is a work of exegesis he presents commentary from the view of an accomplished Hanafi Jurist) – may God raise all their ranks.

Let me just say this: a year or so ago when those two Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and shot, a rabbi friend of mine sent out an email lamenting the event and suggesting a response. His response was to teach more Torah. We WASPy Americans have, at least we had, a Torah, too.

Instead of delighting in visions of mass destruction while slavishly serving other nations’ interests. Americans should steep themselves in the values that made them great.

I think the ‘west vs non-west’ dichotomy is too simple for the New World.

I think such should apply for Europe. Europe should insist on its western identity, culture, history, and etc. Europe is Europe and should remain unique in its races, cultures, and narratives.

But, it’s a bit more complicated in the New World, not least because it had native populations prior to the arrival of Europeans — this was especially true in the Americas of Mexico, Central America, and South America.
Also, whites in many parts of the New World brought blacks for labor.

So, if the West and non-West dichotomy works for Europe — or should work for Europe if Europeans get their act together and push out the darkies — , it doesn’t quite work for the Americas, especially Latin Americas; indeed, many people don’t regard Latin Americas as part of the ‘West’ but see it as part of the non-white Third World, despite the fact that most of Latin America is still ruled by white elites and some Latin American nations can be said to be majority white.

Surely, US and Canada have been more white than the Latin Americas. So, they are usually included in the category of the ‘West’.
But especially with the non-white immigration boom since the 60s, US and Canada have become less white and more ‘diverse’.
So should US and Canada no longer be seen as part of the West?
Should they be seen as extensions not only of European civilization but equally of all cultures around the world? No.

I think the formula for US and Canada should be West+ or West Plus.
This idea should recognize US and Canada as essentially extensions of European Civilization BUT also open, at least to a degree, to non-whites and non-Europeans.

[MORE]

If we say US and Canada are ONLY Western nations, how does one account for the presence of all the non-whites who came from non-European parts of the world?
But if we say US and Canada have no special connection to the West, then US and Canada might as well fling their gates wide open to all the world until they become flooded so much by darkies that they become just an extension of the Third World. Who wants that?

So, US and Canada — and Australia — need to settle for something between nationalist exclusion and globo-imperialist inclusion. They are part of the West and essentially/crucially the extension of the European races and cultures, BUT they have enough room for non-white minorities who are willing to adopt Western values and appreciate the New World nations as essentially extensions of European civilizations. After all, without Europeans and their identity, culture, and ideas, the US and Canada as they came to be and currently exist would be inconceivable.

So, there is the West(Europe), the non-West(Asia, Middle East, Africa, etc), and the West Plus(US, Canada, Australia).

If US and Canada totally drop the ‘west’ label, they would be rejecting the crucial and essential fact about their history of having been founded and built by the brains, muscles, and vision of European settlers. The ‘western’ component of US and Canada is too important to deny, devalue, or ignore. To say that European folks, ideas, visions, values, and ways have no special place in the founding and development of US and Canada would be ludicrous, even outrageous and offensive. It would be like saying blacks have no special place in the development of blues music. Though non-blacks played a role in the development of the blues, had there been no blacks, there would have been no blues.

Likewise, had there been no Europeans, the US and Canada would never have come into existence in the first place.
So, there is no way to dispense with the idea that US and Canada are essentially European creations and construction.
Therefor, the West label must be maintained and defended tooth and nail. And given the laws of demographics and history, US and Canada need to have large numbers of white people because humans naturally identify and judge things on the base of race and appearances. For example, if US were to become 80% Hindu or 80% Chinese or 80% Mexican, the majority of the population would no longer identify with the West EVEN IF they adopted western ways. It’s like Japan is a westernized nation, but it is still an Asian nation. Adopting Western ways doesn’t make you western. It’s like adopting Christianity didn’t make Europeans Middle Eastern even though Christian mythology originated among Middle Eastern peoples.

But the ‘West’ label ALONE no longer works for US and Canada. US brought in too many blacks. Canada could have been a strictly Western nation but embarked on the stupid policy of bringing in lots of non-white immigrants. Canada is now saddled with ‘diversity’.
So, even as Western-ness is crucial and essential to American-ness and Canadian-ness, it no longer works as a sole label.

Given their diversities, should US and Canada then totally junk the ‘western’ label and declare that all races and cultures are equally crucial and essential to their histories and identities?
But that would be crazy.
After all, if a single Hindu, Chinese, or Muslim had NOT settled in Canada, Canada would still be Canada. But suppose not a single European had settled in Canada. Canada wouldn’t exist at all.

Suppose there is an empty island. Suppose Japanese find it first and do most to settle it with their folks, ideas, and ingenuity. Suppose this land comes to have 50 million Japanese-originated settlers. Suppose the people of this nation see themselves as Japanic, or extension of Japanese civilization.
Then, suppose this nation changes its immigration and brings in people from other places. Suppose, this nation now has 10,000 Hindus and 10,000 Turks. Suppose this nation grants citizenship to the Hindu and Turkish arrivals.
Does that mean that this nation is no longer Japanic since it has Hindus and Turks too?
In order to accommodate ‘diversity’, should this nation, which was founded and created as a Japanic nation, totally reject Japanic-ness as the essential core of what it had been and stands for?

But that would be crazy. Surely, any honest person would acknowledge that Japanic people, culture, and ideas have been the essential components in the development of this nation.
So, this nation should never forgo Japanic-ness as its core identity, history, and culture. But given the presence of non-Japanic minorities, it can say the nation is about Japanic-Plus. It is core Japanic but has room for minorities too.

The problem with the discourse in US and Canada is everything is discussed as a zero sum game.
Some insist US and Canada must only be Western. Now, this might have been possible IF US had given blacks their separate territory and if US had been maintained itself as a white-only nation by allowing ONLY white immigrants. And Canada could have done the same thing. Indeed, such policies would have been ideal. But it is now too late.

There are now too many non-whites in US and Canada. So, it isn’t enough to say that they are solely ‘western’ or ‘European-ish’ nations. Also, all those with citizenship deserve the same rights under the law.

But that doesn’t mean that US and Canada should go whole hog and declare that, just because they now have ‘diversity’, they are no longer essentially or crucially Europeanic.
Given the history, culture, and demography of US and Canada, those two nations must be seen, appreciated, and preserved as essentially Western nations with roots in Europe.
And to maintain this, immigration policy must be geared to prevent the inundation of US and Canada by unlimited numbers of non-whites who will make US and Canada look more like Latin America or North Africa than Europe. US and Canada must culturally and demographically resemble Europe more than the Third World.

The case of Latin America has proven that it is not enough for a nation to be ruled by white elites in for it to be ‘western’. This is also true of South Africa, whose political system was created by whites and where most of the economic elites are still white.
If the great masses of the nation are non-white, it is not a Western or Europeanic nation even if ruled by whites and/or influenced by Western culture and ideas.
The white Spanish ruled over Philippines for centuries, and most Filos are Catholic and speak Spanish(or English), but Philippines is NOT a Western or European nation. In the end, the masses are more important than the elites who rule them.
Poland, along with Russia, was once under Mongol rule, but it remained a white nation because the masses were white.

For US and Canada to remain Western or Europeanic, the majority must be white.
Hong Kong was ruled by the white British elitse for over a century, and the Chinese there adopted many Western/European ways, but that didn’t make Hong Kong part of the Western world. Despite Westernization, it remained a part of the East because most Hong Kongese are Chinese.
In contrast, Australia became part of the Western World because the overwhelming number of its inhabitants became white or European.

Anyway, when it comes to US, Canada, and Australia, the most realistic formula is Western+ or Western Plus-ness. We need to acknowledge that their Core must remain Western… but there is room enough for non-whites who, though assured of equality under the law as individual citizens, should remain as racial/ethnic minorities because if white were to lose majority status, their core essential character of US and Canada will be lost and altered forever.

PS. What is truly sad is that Europe, which should be ONLY EUROPEAN, has opted for the PC formula of the US and Canada that total ‘diversity’ to the point where the Anglo/European component is said to have been no more crucial and essential to their history and identity than the other identities and cultures have been.
But this is ridiculous.

While there are surely Burmese and Yemenese Americans, imagine an America that had never had a Burmese or Yemenese immigrant. America would still be America in terms of history, language, race, culture, science, technology, etc. But imagine an America where Europeans, especially Anglos, had never arrived. It would just be wilderness with little more than red childish savages shooting arrows at ‘buffaloes’. And if Europeans hadn’t ‘discovered’ and built up the Americas, all the other folks around the world would know nothing about it since they lacked the imagination and skills to navigate around the world, find new lands, and build new civilizations.
So, Europeans are the indispensable peoplesof nations like US, Canada, and Australia.
In contrast, Burmese and Yemenese have been peripheral to the creation and development of US and Canada. Sure, there can be decent Burmese-Americans and nice Yemenese-Canadians, and they can contribute to American and Canadian society in the present and the future, but they, as a people, have not been essential to the founding and development of US and Canada.

Just like Jews insist that Israel has a special place for Jews because the Holy Land was made holy by Jewish Narrative and History, it would be justifiable for whites in US and Canada to insist that European peoples and cultures have a special place in US and Canada since both nations came to existence as extensions of Western folks, ideas, and cultures.
If Israel can be a Jewish Plus nation — core Jewish nation with non-Jewish citizens with rights under the law — , then US and Canada can be Western Plus nations, or essentially Europeanic nations with room enough for non-white minorities.

Under this system, while white citizens of US and Canada wouldn’t have privileges over non-whites as individuals, they would and should havce special recognition as a Core People and Culture.
It’s like what they have in Israel. Under the law, a Jewish individual must be judged by the same laws that apply to everyone, Jews and Arabs alike. So, if a Jewish individual kills an innocent Arab, he would be just as guilty as an Arab who kills an innocent Jew.
But as a people and culture, Jews do get special recognition in Israel whose policies are geared to keep it a Jewish State or Jewish+ State.

In the US and Canada, whites-as-individual citizens shouldn’t be favored over non-white citizens, but whites-as-a-people-and-culture should be favored over other peoples and cultures in immigration policy and historical narrative in order to preserve the core identity of those nations.

“I can say that the general import of the statement “The husband leads, the wife submits, and the children obey” is a generally true statement of the spirit of the relations in the family life, but this can hardly be translated into absolute obedience as far as the wife is concerned.”

“It’d be like whites thinking and acting like Zionists but for their own nations than for Israel.”

Except America was never observably an exclusively “white” nation. Certainly, Europeans founded America, but blacks and da Joos, as well as tribal groups, also played integral roles in its development. Furthermore, inter-ethnic marriages, i.e. German marrying Irish, Dutch marrying English, were rare in continental Europe, but not in America after the Revolutionary War. Americans are “mutts”.

Again, are whites able to make their own decisions regarding their associations and interactions with non-whites? Or, must all whites at all times follow your brand of “whiteness” lest they be ostracized or castigated for being race traitors?

I saw the blog you pointed to. I can see how you can construe that from his words. I admit I have no clue whether or not that person represents a normative and authoritative voice in Christianity or not. I do know there are a bunch of nut-jobs in the extremes of Christianity; they call for nuking countries from the pulpits of churches, they burn Qur’ans, etc. And from my own experience within Islam, it is extremely important to seek out that normative, authoritative voice before passing any judgement.

As I admitted, I do not know enough about the details of marriage law as formulated by the Catholic Church or the various branches of Protestants. I am only educated on these details from a traditional Islamic background so I was just pointing out the flaw in stating that Islam demands absolute obedience from the wife to the husband.

Bingo. All the more reason for American whites to think in terms of ‘white interests’.

In an all-white nation, there is no need to think in terms of ‘white interests’ since everyone in white.

In traditional Europe, the issue was not about whiteness but about nationality. Brits, French, Poles, Germans, Russians, Finns, and etc were all whites. They were distinct by ethnicity.

But as EU and US becomes more racially diverse, there is a need for RACIAL consciousness since whites must now co-exist and compete with non-white groups who think in terms of racial interests.
Take Jews in EU and US. Surely, Jews understand that they owe a great deal to white advances in civilization and etc. BUT, Jews still think and act in terms of their own tribal and collective interests.

The naturalization act of 1790 refers to America being open to free white Europeans of moral character. It was never meant to include blacks or asians. Whites are not currently free to choose how to interact with non whites in employment, education, or property rights under antidiscrimination and civil rights legislation. I am not certain why you would even assert such things. If whites choose to make the mistake of associating with non whites then they should be allowed to make that decision as well as vice versa.

made it up
if others from professors to barheads can make up nos for indians figure i can to
indians werent a rare item.
they were aware of sex and werent for the most part genocidal like others.
so 27m might not be unreasonable unless it is too low.

I never seen any seen any multiple storey dwellings or wood framed houses before the white man came. I don’t think they had the concept of private property back then. I don’t see how they could have supported thatv many people.

ultimately i dont know. i am just responding to those who make up numbers and present them as real.
dont need sky scrapers to have a population. just lots of land and resources.
the area is large, the indians were excellent at providing food unlike the euro dufusses.
every where the euro went there were indians. plenty of indians.

Do you think the Indians would have developed the internet or that you would be able to go to the bathroom indoors without Euro dufusses? There wasnt plenty of Indians everywhere. The Indians didn’t even have the notion of private property before the whites came. It’s impossible to steal land if you don’t have the concept of private property.

there were plenty of indians in plenty of places enough to irritate your kin. and enough to populate the land.

it is possible the indians or some portion of the indians would have devolved into a euro white type of homo and developed a degraded type of culture, civ that most americans now find repulsive and pointless and meaningless.

It’s impossible to steal land if you don’t have the concept of private property.

There are probably more Indians living now than there ever were. The introduction of the wheel and writing helped a lot. There is no way the social structures of the Indians could have supported 300 million people. The idea that anyone could own land including the state was brought to north america by the whites.

“The naturalization act of 1790 refers to America being open to free white Europeans of moral character. It was never meant to include blacks or asians.”

Yes, for that particular piece of legislation. However, there have subsequent changes to the definition of citizenship, as under the purview of Congress, who represents the will of the people.

Would you like to know more, citizen?

“Whites are not currently free to choose how to interact with non whites in employment, education, or property rights under antidiscrimination and civil rights legislation.”

Actually, whites have those liberty to not hire who they want. Suppose you are a business owner. You don’t want to hire darkies. It’s pretty easy to follow with your wishes, just don’t interview them. In addition, there are a number of neighborhoods where only whites live. Perhaps you should move there.

Regarding education and property rights, you really should blame southrons. See, the ruling under Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) stated specifically “separate but equal”. Had southrons taken this literally, and not put forth extreme measures to deny fundamental freedoms guaranteed to blacks and creating conditions by which it was observably “separate but unequal”, then American citizens, exercising their sovereignty, would not have been forced to intervene to protect the Constitution from such nefarious acts.

“If whites choose to make the mistake of associating with non whites then they should be allowed to make that decision as well as vice versa.”

If whites associating with non-whites is a “mistake”, then a person could reasonably assume this conduct ought not be pursued. I surmise you would attempt to “shame” those whites for their “unnatural” associations with non-whites.

“All the more reason for American whites to think in terms of ‘white interests’.”

Actually, strike three on your part. America was never “all-white”. Citizens have thought of themselves as citizens of a country founded by Europeans, but consisting of several groups of people related by law and custom.

“In traditional Europe, the issue was not about whiteness but about nationality. Brits, French, Poles, Germans, Russians, Finns, and etc were all whites. They were distinct by ethnicity.”

And that ethnicity in America was deemed less important as these groups intermingled and intermarried and sired offspring.

“But as EU and US becomes more racially diverse, there is a need for RACIAL consciousness since whites must now co-exist and compete with non-white groups who think in terms of racial interests.”

Co-exist, yes. Compete? That’s only for the race baiters.

“Take Jews in EU and US. Surely, Jews understand that they owe a great deal to white advances in civilization and etc. BUT, Jews still think and act in terms of their own tribal and collective interests.”

Jews and Americans are completely different animals in terms of their ethnic composition and their interests.

“Okay, fine. Whites need to do the same.”

SOME whites, certainly. ALL whites? Do not whites have the liberty to decide who they associate with? Why should you shame them into submission regarding “race consciousness”?

A lot of the changes came through judicial activism not congress. The doctrine of disparate impact for example was conjured up out of thin air. Many things could be said about the doctrine of separate but equal but here is the most important: white people create living conditions that are better than nonwhites and nonwhites resent this fact. Look at black run cities such as Detroit and Gary. They cant keep the lights on. The whole job of the eeoc is to regulate contract with the purpose of overthrowing wasp hegemony so no whites are not free to create conditions where they can thrive. Whites are not allowed freedom of association. If a white person has more status, prestige or money than a non white then the complaining begins. I am sorry that slavery existed but that doesn’t mean my life should be made worse. I don’t think that white people should be shamed for associating with nonwhites, but they shouldn’t be encouraged or forced to either. It’s kind of like smoking, some people can get away with it but doesn’t make it good for you.

I just got around to reading your December column and was warmed to find a fellow fruitcake aficionado. Don’t bother with those highly hyped Texas ones, they’re dry crap.

I buy mine from Assumption Abbey, and they’re moist, brandy infused heaven. This year in my greedy piggishness I ordered two, and still have one unopened. If you want to email me with a mailing address I’ll send it to you since you missed your fruitcake feast this year, a gift from a fan.

If you don’t trust fan food gifts (this one is still tightly wrapped in its tin) the brothers at Assumption Abbey will be happy to mail one directly to you any time of the year.

Sure we can, but listing all the contributions we Jews have made to your “West” would blow out Ron Unz’s disk storage budget.

True, but I don’t think that means what you think it means. “Jews” have made a great many negative contributions to the West. On balance, I think they easily outweigh the positive contributions, especially when one considers that most of the positive ones don’t require proximity to Whites. E.g., Salk’s vaccine works, regardless of where it was developed. Jews’ negative contributions, on the other hand, tend to require proximity; influence in banking and finance, domination of the media, etc. True, Jews could publish their tendentious culture of critique in our countries from afar, if we let them, but distance would at least impose something of a burden.

That’s just a narrow slice of one particular aspect of negative Jewish influence on the West, down through the years. And it clearly shows Jews as a tie-breaker, in a bad way. Without the Jewish influence, America might’ve won these battles. Imagine if academia had been doing its job all along – imagine how much better-documented the negative Jewish contributions to the ledger would be.

Without Jews in our midst, we’d still have polio vaccine, but we wouldn’t have the hostile Jewish elite voting against us.

Still, I can’t resist mentioning one particular contribution of ours because it’s something so glaringly missing from your rant and the others like it here: a sense of humor.

Au contraire, I’ve always maintained my sense of humor. In fact, I don’t know any other way to do it. Jews do tend to be rather humorless in response, though. Unless you count the “hey where’s my Jewish World Domination Dividend” schtick, which Jews seem to think never gets old.

But, I do find the idea that whites need Jews for their sense of humor to be laughable, so…good one.

The truth is, Whites have done far more for Jews than Jews have done for whites. Jews need Whites far more than Whites need Jews.

But, all of this is academic. Jews take for themselves the right to have Israel, thus obviating their right to object to Whites having the same thing for themselves.

Yeah – don’t attack Russia – if anybody hasn’t learned that lesson yet, well there’s a gravestone with your name on it at the footsteps of the Urals.

The Mongols blew through Russia without breaking a sweat. Rolled the place up like a carpet.

And the comment immediately preceding even went into some detail on the Mongols, lol.

There has been nothing more destructive to whites than jews, nothing even comes close.

You’re conveniently forgetting those lovable Europeans that colonized the Americas, Africa, and Asia, bringing in warfare and disease to hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars of environmental and continental damage. Nothing even comes close.

Man doesn’t even seem to know what “whites” means. Can’t argue with stupid.

Never lost any sleep over scrolling past his comments.

1. Attempt to denaturalize, lock up or kill Indians who assimilated to American culture [there were some] the way Germans did with so many German citizen Jews who lacked powerful Aryan patrons [in their stated ideal world, it would have been all German Jews].

Jews didn’t have to do that to the Palestinians. They just ran hundreds of thousands of them off their land with terror and violence.

2. Attempt to run a blood-based registry system to identify and expunge such Indians from American life.

Jews do have Nuremberg Laws in Israel, though.

3. Once they had conquered all the territory and put the Indians on reservations in slovenly conditions, then proceed to gas them all and burn the corpses in big ovens, with the explicit goal of killing every last one of them.

Neither did the Germans. I’ve been over this before, but the TL;DR version is that your historical ignorance is profound.

4. Actually come close to killing all of them by deliberate murder. [see below].

Aaand neither did the Germans. Again, crack a history book.

The latest info suggests Ashkenazi Jews are a 2000 year old Italo-Semitic blend, which would make them both Europeans and Israelites, with some kind of claim to be at home in both. The Khazar hypothesis hasn’t held up as well.

Half-European isn’t European, it’s half-European.

Europeans might as well claim to be at home in Israel (a claim Israelis would of course DENY) because Israel’s largely half-European.

“It’d be like whites thinking and acting like Zionists but for their own nations than for Israel.”

Except America was never observably an exclusively “white” nation.

So what, shitbird? Israel was never an observably or exclusively “Jewish” nation. If you want an absolute, I have one for you: your posts are never worth a shit, ever.

In certain cases could there be a reasonable argument made that liberal and conservative Justices have engaged in that conduct.

“The doctrine of disparate impact for example was conjured up out of thin air.”

Actually, this doctrine was part of the Fair Housing Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress.

“Many things could be said about the doctrine of separate but equal but here is the most important: white people create living conditions that are better than nonwhites and nonwhites resent this fact.”

First, you assume that white people create everything that is the best is part of “separate but equal”. Second, you assume that non-whites resent this “fact”.

“Look at black run cities such as Detroit and Gary. They cant keep the lights on.”

There is a host of problems, including political mismanagement, that contribute to the problems of those cities.

“Whites are not allowed freedom of association.”

That is patently false. You have the liberty to hire whomever you want and to live wherever you want.

“If a white person has more status, prestige or money than a non white then the complaining begins [insert**]. I am sorry that slavery existed but that doesn’t mean my life should be made worse.”

**by both whites and non-whites.

“I don’t think that white people should be shamed for associating with nonwhites, but they shouldn’t be encouraged or forced to either.”

In essence, you stand for nothing. I believe the appropriate term here is “cucking”.

“Man doesn’t even seem to know what “whites” means. Can’t argue with stupid.”

Since numerous posters here have either avoided defining it exactly, or have defined it in several different ways, it’s not a matter of me being stupid, it’s a matter of others being vague.

Me–“Do not whites have the liberty to decide who they associate with?”

You–“No, they manifestly do not, you monumental idiot.”

Me–You do realize you are completely undercutting the “freedom of association” argument made by whites, right? You do realize that by making this statement, you are saying that whites must be lock-step to an ideology, that whites lack any rational capacity to make their own decisions.

What gives you that right to strip the right of whites to do what they want in this regard?

“The truth is, Whites have done far more for Jews than Jews have done for whites. Jews need Whites far more than Whites need Jews.”

First, it’s YOUR version of truth. Second, I invoke Niwdog’s Law.

Niwdog’s Law—As an online discussion continues with multiple posters, the likelihood of a person making assertions that the Jews are behind everything in the world that is “bad” exponentially grows.

How can whites practice freedom of association without violating the fair housing act or the civil rights act? Explain to me how whites can do so without breaking The law being specific. The political mismanagement of black run cities is due to black power establishment empowered by the black voters and many whites have been forced to live among such wreckage leading to a lessened quality of life including shorter life span. In order to maintain the illusion of equality whites must never speak out against black incompetence, even if the water stops running and the lights go out because blacks would riot. So the choice for whitey is to watch the whole ship go down I guess.

Good point about the Mongols – they did basically roll over everybody – so I always took them to be the exception to the rule (as John Green is fond of stating in his brilliant ‘Crash Course’ series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo). I should have been more clear. I’m talking Russia post-Mongol invasion where they turned around their franchise around under Ivan the Terrible and ended up absorbing the descendants of those same Tartar conquerors.

So yes, don’t invade Russia, unless you are – wait for it – the Mongols…

“How can whites practice freedom of association without violating the fair housing act or the civil rights act? Explain to me how whites can do so without breaking The law being specific.”

Situation 1—You are white. You own a house. You put it on the marketplace. You sell it to a white person. You may show it to the darkies, but you know deep down they will never ever get their hands on “your” property. You end up selling it to a white couple.

Situation 2—You are white. You want to live in a historic white neighborhood. Conduct research. Move there.

“The political mismanagement of black run cities is due to black power establishment empowered by the black voters and many whites have been forced to live among such wreckage leading to a lessened quality of life including shorter life span.”

Please educate yourself regarding the decline of Detroit. It’s more than what you are making it out to be.

“In order to maintain the illusion of equality whites must never speak out against black incompetence, even if the water stops running and the lights go out because blacks would riot.”

Whites observably speak out about incompetence all the time, whether it be Hispanic or black or Asian or Jooish. This blog is one such space. Feel free to come out openly about your positions. You will find support.

There is really not much more to the history of rust belt cities than good intentions of social reformers ruining useful things to cope with vexing political problems. Social activists never seem to keep in mind that a business has to be competitive on the world market before advocacy.

“There is really not much more to the history of rust belt cities than good intentions of social reformers ruining useful things to cope with vexing political problems.”

You’re going to have define “ruining useful things”.

And, yes, damn those social reformers for cleaning up corrupt government through the referendum and the recall; ensuring that workers were guaranteed a decent wage and safe conditions; and protecting consumers from rotten meat and dangerous chemicals.

“Social activists never seem to keep in mind that a business has to be competitive on the world market before advocacy.”

Businesses during the age of the “robber barons/captains of industry” (late 1800’s) weren’t that competitive considering the machinations of Carnegie and Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. Can’t necessarily blame them, since they operated during a time period of a lack of federal and state oversight. Would you prefer to return to those “halcyon days”?

Yes I would prefer to return to those days. The town I grew up in niagara falls ny has an unbelievably high number of adult men on ssi for mental issues, when the reality is that there are no jobs for them because of overregulation of the labor market, and overly strict environmental laws, interferences with property rights and too generous entitlements. Guaranteeing someone a safe workplace and a decent wage is meaningless if there are no jobs. I know many young people living at home into their thirties so damn right I would like to go back. However bad those times were at least there was social mobility and things got done.

“There is really not much more to the history of rust belt cities than good intentions of social reformers ruining useful things to cope with vexing political problems.”

Please define “ruining useful things”.

“Yes I would prefer to return to those days.”

Really? Prefer to live at a time where big business owners created untenable conditions for workers, crushed efforts by free men to organize unions to secure a living wage and benefits, and used their wealth and influence to buy votes? That’s bizarre.

“The town I grew up in niagara falls ny has an unbelievably high number of adult men on ssi for mental issues…”

Do you have any sources to back up this claim?

“when the reality is that there are no jobs for them because of overregulation of the labor market, and overly strict environmental laws, interferences with property rights and too generous entitlements.” NO jobs? Ok, son, time to put up or shut up. Explain specifically, as in cause-effect relationships, how these issues directly led those men to be on disability in Niagara Falls, taking into account that this city is plagued by contamination for radioactive waste and dumping, has experienced corrupt (white) politicians, and has higher crime rates.

“However bad those times were at least there was social mobility and things got done.”

Social mobility during the late 1800’s for factory workers was virtually impossible. By 1890, the richest 9 percent of Americans held nearly three-quarters of all wealth in the United States. By 1900, one American in eight (nearly 10 million people) lived below the poverty line. Most industrial workers put in 10 hr days/ 6 days per week at about $1.50 per day. They rarely saw the owner.

Good point about the Mongols – they did basically roll over everybody – so I always took them to be the exception to the rule

To further the fairness, Russia was kinda young at the time. Which is saying the same thing as your “franchise” comment.

But no, the Mongols didn’t roll over everybody. They left Europe alone, probably because of (inter alia) the huge number of fortifications there (which started roughly at where the Mongols started having trouble with the Hungarians). Europe was far more fortified than any of the places the Mongols took.

Mongols had a keen eye as to where they would do well, and where they wouldn’t, like any good bandit race.

It’s not worth someone’s bother to employ someone if the you overregulate the relationship after a certain point it’s just easier to relocate elsewhere. Social mobility and income equality are not necessarily related phenomenon. Negotiating a living wage is meaningless when the alternatives are doing nothing on ssi, being homeless or living at home on a low wage. Protecting someone from a nonexistent employer is really no protection at all. Beggars can’t be choosers. I don’t like the idea of employers taking advantage of employees but the real question in life is always as opposed to what. As opposed to doing nothing? Do you think that the civil rights act, osha, unemployment insurance, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, Medicare, social security, out of control schools taxes, Obamacare, minimum wages, affirmative action, income taxes, corporate taxes and other things besides can just be pushed into the employer endlessly? No one is going to form an organization, risk their own private pool of capital, knowing full well that the state has already spent 85 percent of the profits ahead of time. It’s popular to push these costs onto employers because it’s seen as an US versus them tactic by demagogues but these are not costless measures.

Good point about European fortifications – they had quite a bit of experience by warding off each other’s armies.

I was always under the impression that the only thing that stopped the Mongols from going further Wet was; 1) the defeat at Ain-Jalut (at least for North Africa) and 2) the start of their internal wars of succession.

“It’s not worth someone’s bother to employ someone if the you overregulate the relationship after a certain point it’s just easier to relocate elsewhere.”

It’s not overregulation, it’s regulation that is stringent. But that wasn’t occurring in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, it was a LACK of regulation.

“Social mobility and income equality are not necessarily related phenomenon.”

“Negotiating a living wage is meaningless when the alternatives are doing nothing on ssi, being homeless or living at home on a low wage. Protecting someone from a nonexistent employer is really no protection at all.”

Speaking of ssi, you made this claim, “The town I grew up in niagara falls ny has an unbelievably high number of adult men on ssi for mental issues…”

Again, do you have any sources to back up this claim? Do you even understand how discourse works?

“I don’t like the idea of employers taking advantage of employees but the real question in life is always as opposed to what. As opposed to doing nothing?”

As opposed to ensuring that workers are able to secure for themselves from their employer a decent wage to avoid being on “the public dole”.

“Do you think that the civil rights act, osha, unemployment insurance, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, Medicare, social security, out of control schools taxes, Obamacare, minimum wages, affirmative action, income taxes, corporate taxes and other things besides can just be pushed into the employer endlessly?”

They are not pushed onto the employer endlessly, these are anticipated costs of doing business in a civilized society. Moreover, those costs are invariably passed to consumers.

“No one is going to form an organization, risk their own private pool of capital, knowing full well that the state has already spent 85 percent of the profits ahead of time.”

I don’t have specific numbers for the town I grew up in. For reasons that are not hard to understand most political entities are not interested in publishing statistics on the number of people on disability or commissioning such a study. Charles Murray does detail the rising number of men on disability despite the fact that jobs have become safer. The phenomenon of hikkomori in Japan is actually a psychiatric diagnosis of the social phenomenon of men being rendered useless by the nanny state, the same thing is happening here.

So, then, you were trying to state something as true without having the requisite facts to back it up. In other words, you have no clue.

“For reasons that are not hard to understand most political entities are not interested in publishing statistics on the number of people on disability or commissioning such a study.”

What a copout. One could locate those statistics through some hard digging.

“Charles Murray does detail the rising number of men on disability despite the fact that jobs have become safer.”

And what are those details?

“The phenomenon of hikkomori in Japan is actually a psychiatric diagnosis of the social phenomenon of men being rendered useless by the nanny state, the same thing is happening here.”

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare defines hikikomori as people who do not participate in society – mainly work or study – and do not have any close non-familial relationships. Environmental contribute to hikikomori, with most cases arising in middle class families.

So, you are going to have to submit evidence that a similar phenomenon is occurring here in the States that is directly related to the “nanny state”.

See, you are one of several posters who just make statements without any backing whatsoever. If you are able to offer a cogent response, rather than fling poo at the wall and hope it sticks, it makes your argument more credible. Do you even understand how discourse works?

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter